My list: Aliens vs Predator - AVP2 was OK, but some parts seemed a bit like a rush job. Should also allow Predators to climb most stuff as well (just slower than Aliens), and have them leave their claw marks on the walls/trees when climbing (so the marines and others at least have some clue:) ). For PvP balance they could do the Aliens a bit like the zombies in Left4Dead - you have many much weaker cannonfodder aliens, and then the humans can control a few special ones (or just be a sneakier normal alien;) ).
Archon - a less deterministic version of Chess:).
Autoduel - car wars:). Doesn't have to redone in first person perspective. Leave it top down, or something similar.
Omega - the game where you write _programs_ to control tanks.
And how about a decent mecha game with updated tech? OK I heard the japanese arcades have a Gundam game, so something like that would be good. There also was a game called Virtual On - I never got a chance to play that either:).
Now downloading Continuum (used to be SubSpace) again.
I've never been to the USA, but from what you and other say that Democrat vs Republican thing seems a lot like tribal thinking.
If most people didn't take it so seriously it'll be just like the "pro wrestling" stuff (you support your wrestler no matter what he does, and I support mine, but it's all in the name of good fun), but the scary thing is so many seem to take it very seriously.
Tribal thinking has not served Africa well. I doubt it'll serve the USA well.
These sort of biofuels are basically solar energy.
So I'm curious to how these compare to "Solar Thermal Energy" in terms of cost per kWh.
Assuming about 34 megajoules per litre of biofuel, and thus about 289 MJ per gallon, Google[1] gives me:
((289 megajoules * 20000) per acre) per year = 45.2600835 watts per (square meter).
So it's pumping out on average about 90 watts per square meter on average during the day (ignoring night time).
Assuming the average insolation to produce the 90 watts was 300 watts per square meter, that means about 30% efficiency in conversion. Not bad if the assumptions and calculations are correct.
Just wonder how much that biofuel's infrastructure costs to build, and costs to maintain. And how efficient they are in use of land area once you add in the necessary support infrastructure.
Solar thermal reflectors cost $$$ too (build, repair, cleaning etc). But I believe the systems involved are not so complicated, have fewer dependencies, so they should be cheaper.
Now the other difference is the main end product of this is a liquid biofuel. Whereas the main end product of solar thermal energy is electricity.
If this energy is going to be used for cars, the efficiency drops even more for biofuels - higher losses due to fuel distribution, fuel cell conversion, or combustion engines. Electricity distribution loss is about 7% and both batteries and electric motors have quite low losses in comparison.
There are very good reasons to have meetings, and meetings can be useful when done well. Just google for stuff about "effective meetings".
You could have meetings to introduce people to each other, meetings to get information, meetings to decide on stuff, meetings for brainstorming, make important announcements - for instance if Mr CEO is going to lay off lots of staff, I feel it's rather bad form to just send an email.
The main problem with meetings is when the people involved don't know what the meeting is for- one might think it's for brainstorming, another might think it's for deciding (build a consensus on direction to go). So the meeting could go on for hours without achieving anything useful. The people involved need to know the agenda and reason for a meeting, especially the person chairing the meeting:).
Now once you get that done right, there's still room for greater efficiency.
With conventional meetings you use up Y hours of X people, though most of the actual participant "brain usage time" is only a few minutes. This is analogous to a program running for X hours of "real time" but only using 5 minutes of CPU time. Conventional meetings have the problem of wasting 2 hours of 10 people's time.
So if I were a boss, I might "encourage" my employees to use instant messaging for certain types of meetings where possible. That way I can have them in multiple meetings at the same time (bwahaha!).:)
The chatlogs could then be archived (automatically? ) to somewhere where I can quickly see what they've been up to (and for official record). I don't care if they're doing other stuff during those meetings - as long as they can still contribute usefully (I'd prefer to hire people who can read and understand things fast).
Thing is you can't have such meetings throughout the day + every day, since many things require full concentration. If people can't drive properly while chatting over the cellphone, I'm sure they can't do certain work related tasks while being in a meeting. So meeting times where possible should be restricted to certain parts of the day, or to certain days.
I doubt attending a meeting requires that much concentration, you could probably idle a fair bit even if you're in 3 "instant messaging" meetings at the same time.
You could even go for a coffee/toilet break, or take an important phone call without wasting everyone's time when you "return" (with conventional meetings there's often the repeating the past X minutes) - you just scroll up to see what you've missed. You do need to say that you've gone "AFK" though, so that the rest don't waste time trying to ask you questions that require immediate response.
An extra pair of arms would help when soldering stuff:). Plenty of other uses - being able to firmly hold stuff while doing things to it.
As for an extra pair of legs - I don't think something like a centaur would really be that disadvantaged. A centaur would be able to be a very effective predator, and thus consume high energy density food (e.g. other animals) if necessary. Imagine being able to use a spear, and sprint almost as fast as a horse. Perhaps centaurs wouldn't have as much endurance - depends on whether they still have to have human sized air intakes and horse style lungs.
Now getting to "centaur" from some other precursor creature might take a huge evolutionary leap:). But stuff like butterflies are pretty amazing too.
They may have the ability. But do they and should they have the legal right to do so?
Hackers have all sorts of abilities. They have the right to break into their own computers and delete their own data. But it's illegal in most countries for them to do it to other people's computers without permission.
So in this case: 1) Are all the Kindles owned by Amazon? 2) Is it reasonable to consider that the Kindle buyers have given Amazon the permission to do what they did? 3) Was the content/data illegally sold by Amazon or by someone else?
If Amazon was just providing a payment service like "Visa/Mastercard" and a shopping mall for shop owners to sell their stuff in, I don't see how that gives Amazon the right to stick their nose in other people's businesses and delete that content, just because it happens to be illegal. Go call the cops, or kickout the shop owners.
It's a different thing if the customers wanted to return the book for a refund (because somehow due to a screw up the wrong book was downloaded), then Amazon provides a "goods return and refunding" service for the customers and the shopowners to _voluntarily_ use.
I can hire a locksmith to go break into my house to return a book I took by mistake. But I'd be rather pissed off if the department store gets their guys over to do the same thing when I didn't ask them to.
Leave the breaking, entering and confiscation to the cops. Then at least we only need to worry about and keep an eye over just one bunch of thugs.
At the rate things go maybe in the future a General Genetic's franchisee might gene modify your wife, but then General Genetics sends thugs to "downgrade" her because they made a mistake. And go after your kids when they find out you had children - unauthorized reproduction of General Genetic's property.
So if Amazon has stepped out of line, they need to be smacked for it. You cannot just "leave it to the market", leaving it to the market means those with the most money have the most votes.
Ah, but when some people buy and then own a book, they still want to be able to return it for a refund.
The "deletion" and DRM feature allows that to happen.
If people really want to be able to do that then you need that sort of feature.
However, that doesn't mean that it was legal for Amazon to do what they did:).
It boils down to whether users own their kindle.
If users really own their kindle then someone in Amazon should be in trouble for breaking one of those computer crime laws. Unauthorized modification/destruction of a computer system.
If I go to some shopping mall and ONE of the shops renting a place in that mall illegally sells me a book that I shouldn't have. I don't expect the _shopping_mall_ people to somehow destroy that book.
I don't think it's their jurisdiction at all.
If it's such a big issue, Amazon can report the problem to the police. They're the ones legally allowed to do the breaking, entering and confiscation crap - they're not doing a good job of it, but judging from what's been happening I strongly doubt Amazon and friends are going to do much better. Anyone remember Sony's rootkit?
At worst the misbehaving cops get put on leave. In the corporate world they seem to get bonuses for behaving badly.
That speciesism does help make it harder for one small group of people treating the rest of us as livestock. Or at least gives most of us livestock the illusion that we're not livestock:).
The target of "equality amongst humans" has produced a fair amount good even if we don't get full marks on it. I daresay it's produced more good than harm, so it's a good target.
> It will be a long hard fight for equality when we finally do meet or engineer sentient life from non-human stock.
The sooner we engineer sentient (or near sentient) life, the sooner we have all these problems. We already don't treat most animals that well. OK many pets are treated well, but the rest not so well.
Are we really ready? What's the benefit compared to the costs? We can repair a few thousand very rich humans? Or we get to revisit that slavery thing? At least dogs are mostly happy to serve us - we bred them that way over generations. But give them some "intelligence" genes that also make them not so "happy to serve" = big problem.
It's not progress if we create opportunities for doing far more evil than good. Creating a new bunch of sentient creatures just to enslave or use as "spare parts" doesn't come under doing lots of good.
So with certain fields I think it's best to wait till we can figure out how to do more good than evil with the proposed "advance" in science and tech.
You can _augment_ humans, without creating "real" AI. You could augment animals too, without creating "AI" or making human-animal hybrids - e.g. use a computer to help a dog/ape/parrot "speak".
I'm sure most of us agree we'll have to draw the line somewhere.
The first problem as you say is "Where?".
Whatever we choose will seem rather arbitrary, stupid and unsatisfactory to most people, but it's going to be even more stupid to not draw a line. Or worse- to draw many lines on a case to case basis.
Analogy: when you invent cakes, sooner or later someone has to draw the line and decide what can legally be considered a cake. It be seem silly, and the line may be redrawn later, but it will still have to be drawn. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F
Once we give ourselves a "power", it becomes our responsibility.
Which brings us to the next big problem. To me it seems like the scientists etc are merrily giving us "powers" way before we are ready.
To me, certain areas of research should be postponed till we are ready to draw the relevant lines.
Right now scientists and many other people keep saying stuff like "do it because we can", "don't stop progress", "don't be a luddite".
BUT this is NOT the same as being luddites or sticking our heads in the sand, this is in fact the opposite. This is seeing a potential issue in the horizon, and choosing to not charge at it, until we have a more well thought out plan of what to do when we get there.
The power to make "Jaffa Cakes" and biscuits is not a real biggie, but what should we do with human/animal/machine hybrids?
What makes you legally human? Killing a stray aka "free" dog and unplugging a brain dead human are considered different things legally.
At what points do we consider something human? Be very careful where and how the line is drawn, or many of us may end up not being legally considered human. If we draw the line another way, we might have to stop eating pigs, dogs, etc. The pigs might be happier (or not - since pig farmers will just close down their pig farms and leave them to fend for themselves aka die). It is no trivial matter. We already have enough problems convincing people what can and cannot be done with human embryos, imagine the problems with hybrid human-animal embryos.
If we are not prepared to draw certain lines yet, "don't go there yet" then. If we charge into things, the judges may not have enough understanding when they draw the first line, could then be a long and troubled wait till it is next redrawn.
There are plenty of other areas to do research in first (and limited resources anyway). Areas without such problems.
Lastly, even if a human embryo isn't much in the early months (or weeks), for symbolic reasons we could draw a more cautious (early) line. After all we for various reasons have chosen to elevate humans and human life above all other creatures. If we are going to value humans so highly, giving special value to a near brainless human embryo doesn't seem that stupid to me.
Plus if we don't, it might be harder to convince the future AIs or advanced hybrids to value humans and their embryos as highly;).
I suspect bees can get angry or even "grouchy". If you poke about a beehive when the weather is wet they are more likely to sting you than when it's nice and sunny.
You might say it's just anthropomorphizing them, but hey many people don't even realize they're grouchy when they are hungry (denial?), they're more likely to snap at you.
So if you did something to an AI then it appears to take things personally and makes extra special effort to hurt you, then for all intents and purposes I'd say you pissed off the AI.
Apparently right to left languages can be harder to localize because the native readers also expect stuff like pictures indicating sequence of events to go right to left as well.
So if you have an image with the pictures/diagrams in the order of A, B, C. They would think C happens first, then B, then A.
Of course, in a game, the players would probably figure it out eventually;).
As for shipping all on the same date, I don't see why it matters that much. Many nonnative speakers can still play the english version if they want to badly enough.
The big problem you have is if the first released version is banned/illegal in their country and it isn't really a localization problem and more of a "legalization" problem. In which case if you don't release a legal version soon enough, they'd probably pirate the initial release. So by the time the legal version comes out, you might have missed out on some sales.
My brother tried to buy GTA3 when he went to Singapore but apparently it was banned at the time:).
Just curious. How well would you guys do at detection if stuff like perl malware becomes common?
Would it the same, or harder?
I'm asking this because if stuff like OSX and Linux become more and more popular, they will become viable targets to convert to "zombies". And both OSX and Linux have a different set of built-ins for malware authors to take advantage of- e.g. scripting languages.
If it's non directional, does not get blocked by most materials and has a range of a few meters, how well would it work if in apartments where you and your neighbours tried to use the tech?
But if the attacker already controls a computer on the internal network, there's already so much more the attacker can do, in addition to pwning your router.
Whereas if the attacker is outside and only trusted machines are on the internal network, the attacker needs to guess or determine the IP address of your router, in order to get your browser to attack your router (or get your computer to do that by some other means). This is only trivial if the routers are using addresses like 192.168.1.1 and 10.1.1.1 etc.
Otherwise I am not aware of a trivial way to do that. If you know, do let me know.
I do know you can determine stuff like the browser's IP address if you have access to the relevant activex stuff. But it does not seem easy with just javascript alone. Examples from google search are either stuff that's plain wrong or a javascript+java example that gives 127.0.0.1 on my browser (I suspect if you can loosen up the java restrictions it'll return a more useful ip address - that's what the relevant docs say anyway, but by default it's 127.0.0.1).
The javascript portscanning scripts I'm aware of all require the attacker to specify a network range.
If people just disabled remote admin (which you should do anyway) and used different router IPs (e.g. not 192.168.1.1 or the usual), then attackers either need to do additional stuff to figure out what your default gateway is (and thus presumably your router IP), or they need to have significant control of a PC attached to the internal network (and presumably able to access the router webpage).
Slashdot Mirror
My list: :) ). For PvP balance they could do the Aliens a bit like the zombies in Left4Dead - you have many much weaker cannonfodder aliens, and then the humans can control a few special ones (or just be a sneakier normal alien ;) ).
:).
:). Doesn't have to redone in first person perspective. Leave it top down, or something similar.
:).
Aliens vs Predator
- AVP2 was OK, but some parts seemed a bit like a rush job. Should also allow Predators to climb most stuff as well (just slower than Aliens), and have them leave their claw marks on the walls/trees when climbing (so the marines and others at least have some clue
Archon - a less deterministic version of Chess
Autoduel - car wars
Omega - the game where you write _programs_ to control tanks.
And how about a decent mecha game with updated tech? OK I heard the japanese arcades have a Gundam game, so something like that would be good. There also was a game called Virtual On - I never got a chance to play that either
Now downloading Continuum (used to be SubSpace) again.
Spills or leaks of radioactive materials don't spread like contagious diseases.
:).
There's also the steps of getting stuff into that secure container.
Hopefully they don't use this as an opportunity to screw up the labeling
I've never been to the USA, but from what you and other say that Democrat vs Republican thing seems a lot like tribal thinking.
If most people didn't take it so seriously it'll be just like the "pro wrestling" stuff (you support your wrestler no matter what he does, and I support mine, but it's all in the name of good fun), but the scary thing is so many seem to take it very seriously.
Tribal thinking has not served Africa well. I doubt it'll serve the USA well.
These sort of biofuels are basically solar energy.
So I'm curious to how these compare to "Solar Thermal Energy" in terms of cost per kWh.
Assuming about 34 megajoules per litre of biofuel, and thus about 289 MJ per gallon, Google[1] gives me:
((289 megajoules * 20000) per acre) per year = 45.2600835 watts per (square meter).
So it's pumping out on average about 90 watts per square meter on average during the day (ignoring night time).
Assuming the average insolation to produce the 90 watts was 300 watts per square meter, that means about 30% efficiency in conversion. Not bad if the assumptions and calculations are correct.
Just wonder how much that biofuel's infrastructure costs to build, and costs to maintain. And how efficient they are in use of land area once you add in the necessary support infrastructure.
Solar thermal reflectors cost $$$ too (build, repair, cleaning etc). But I believe the systems involved are not so complicated, have fewer dependencies, so they should be cheaper.
Now the other difference is the main end product of this is a liquid biofuel. Whereas the main end product of solar thermal energy is electricity.
If this energy is going to be used for cars, the efficiency drops even more for biofuels - higher losses due to fuel distribution, fuel cell conversion, or combustion engines. Electricity distribution loss is about 7% and both batteries and electric motors have quite low losses in comparison.
[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=((289+megajoules+*++20000+per+acre)+per+year+)+in+watts+per+square+metre&btnG=Search&meta=
I don't think I was trolling, but how about a Score: 5, Troll while you all are at it?
:)
Pretty please?
There are very good reasons to have meetings, and meetings can be useful when done well. Just google for stuff about "effective meetings".
:).
:)
You could have meetings to introduce people to each other, meetings to get information, meetings to decide on stuff, meetings for brainstorming, make important announcements - for instance if Mr CEO is going to lay off lots of staff, I feel it's rather bad form to just send an email.
The main problem with meetings is when the people involved don't know what the meeting is for- one might think it's for brainstorming, another might think it's for deciding (build a consensus on direction to go). So the meeting could go on for hours without achieving anything useful. The people involved need to know the agenda and reason for a meeting, especially the person chairing the meeting
Now once you get that done right, there's still room for greater efficiency.
With conventional meetings you use up Y hours of X people, though most of the actual participant "brain usage time" is only a few minutes. This is analogous to a program running for X hours of "real time" but only using 5 minutes of CPU time. Conventional meetings have the problem of wasting 2 hours of 10 people's time.
So if I were a boss, I might "encourage" my employees to use instant messaging for certain types of meetings where possible. That way I can have them in multiple meetings at the same time (bwahaha!).
The chatlogs could then be archived (automatically? ) to somewhere where I can quickly see what they've been up to (and for official record). I don't care if they're doing other stuff during those meetings - as long as they can still contribute usefully (I'd prefer to hire people who can read and understand things fast).
Thing is you can't have such meetings throughout the day + every day, since many things require full concentration. If people can't drive properly while chatting over the cellphone, I'm sure they can't do certain work related tasks while being in a meeting. So meeting times where possible should be restricted to certain parts of the day, or to certain days.
I doubt attending a meeting requires that much concentration, you could probably idle a fair bit even if you're in 3 "instant messaging" meetings at the same time.
You could even go for a coffee/toilet break, or take an important phone call without wasting everyone's time when you "return" (with conventional meetings there's often the repeating the past X minutes) - you just scroll up to see what you've missed. You do need to say that you've gone "AFK" though, so that the rest don't waste time trying to ask you questions that require immediate response.
An extra pair of arms would help when soldering stuff :). Plenty of other uses - being able to firmly hold stuff while doing things to it.
:). But stuff like butterflies are pretty amazing too.
As for an extra pair of legs - I don't think something like a centaur would really be that disadvantaged. A centaur would be able to be a very effective predator, and thus consume high energy density food (e.g. other animals) if necessary. Imagine being able to use a spear, and sprint almost as fast as a horse. Perhaps centaurs wouldn't have as much endurance - depends on whether they still have to have human sized air intakes and horse style lungs.
Now getting to "centaur" from some other precursor creature might take a huge evolutionary leap
I don't care if it's a rehash, if it's a good rehash it could still be entertaining, interesting and even mind provoking.
After all, lots of movies/stories are a rehash of ideas more than 2000 years old.
Having the ability is not the main problem.
They may have the ability. But do they and should they have the legal right to do so?
Hackers have all sorts of abilities. They have the right to break into their own computers and delete their own data. But it's illegal in most countries for them to do it to other people's computers without permission.
So in this case:
1) Are all the Kindles owned by Amazon?
2) Is it reasonable to consider that the Kindle buyers have given Amazon the permission to do what they did?
3) Was the content/data illegally sold by Amazon or by someone else?
If Amazon was just providing a payment service like "Visa/Mastercard" and a shopping mall for shop owners to sell their stuff in, I don't see how that gives Amazon the right to stick their nose in other people's businesses and delete that content, just because it happens to be illegal. Go call the cops, or kickout the shop owners.
It's a different thing if the customers wanted to return the book for a refund (because somehow due to a screw up the wrong book was downloaded), then Amazon provides a "goods return and refunding" service for the customers and the shopowners to _voluntarily_ use.
I can hire a locksmith to go break into my house to return a book I took by mistake. But I'd be rather pissed off if the department store gets their guys over to do the same thing when I didn't ask them to.
Leave the breaking, entering and confiscation to the cops. Then at least we only need to worry about and keep an eye over just one bunch of thugs.
At the rate things go maybe in the future a General Genetic's franchisee might gene modify your wife, but then General Genetics sends thugs to "downgrade" her because they made a mistake. And go after your kids when they find out you had children - unauthorized reproduction of General Genetic's property.
So if Amazon has stepped out of line, they need to be smacked for it. You cannot just "leave it to the market", leaving it to the market means those with the most money have the most votes.
Ah, but when some people buy and then own a book, they still want to be able to return it for a refund.
:).
The "deletion" and DRM feature allows that to happen.
If people really want to be able to do that then you need that sort of feature.
However, that doesn't mean that it was legal for Amazon to do what they did
It boils down to whether users own their kindle.
If users really own their kindle then someone in Amazon should be in trouble for breaking one of those computer crime laws. Unauthorized modification/destruction of a computer system.
If I go to some shopping mall and ONE of the shops renting a place in that mall illegally sells me a book that I shouldn't have. I don't expect the _shopping_mall_ people to somehow destroy that book.
I don't think it's their jurisdiction at all.
If it's such a big issue, Amazon can report the problem to the police. They're the ones legally allowed to do the breaking, entering and confiscation crap - they're not doing a good job of it, but judging from what's been happening I strongly doubt Amazon and friends are going to do much better. Anyone remember Sony's rootkit?
At worst the misbehaving cops get put on leave. In the corporate world they seem to get bonuses for behaving badly.
I have to point out that most scientists don't want posthumous fame and fortune ;).
That speciesism does help make it harder for one small group of people treating the rest of us as livestock. Or at least gives most of us livestock the illusion that we're not livestock :).
The target of "equality amongst humans" has produced a fair amount good even if we don't get full marks on it. I daresay it's produced more good than harm, so it's a good target.
> It will be a long hard fight for equality when we finally do meet or engineer sentient life from non-human stock.
The sooner we engineer sentient (or near sentient) life, the sooner we have all these problems. We already don't treat most animals that well. OK many pets are treated well, but the rest not so well.
Are we really ready? What's the benefit compared to the costs? We can repair a few thousand very rich humans? Or we get to revisit that slavery thing? At least dogs are mostly happy to serve us - we bred them that way over generations. But give them some "intelligence" genes that also make them not so "happy to serve" = big problem.
It's not progress if we create opportunities for doing far more evil than good. Creating a new bunch of sentient creatures just to enslave or use as "spare parts" doesn't come under doing lots of good.
So with certain fields I think it's best to wait till we can figure out how to do more good than evil with the proposed "advance" in science and tech.
You can _augment_ humans, without creating "real" AI. You could augment animals too, without creating "AI" or making human-animal hybrids - e.g. use a computer to help a dog/ape/parrot "speak".
> Where do we draw the line?
I'm sure most of us agree we'll have to draw the line somewhere.
The first problem as you say is "Where?".
Whatever we choose will seem rather arbitrary, stupid and unsatisfactory to most people, but it's going to be even more stupid to not draw a line. Or worse- to draw many lines on a case to case basis.
Analogy: when you invent cakes, sooner or later someone has to draw the line and decide what can legally be considered a cake. It be seem silly, and the line may be redrawn later, but it will still have to be drawn. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F
Once we give ourselves a "power", it becomes our responsibility.
Which brings us to the next big problem. To me it seems like the scientists etc are merrily giving us "powers" way before we are ready.
To me, certain areas of research should be postponed till we are ready to draw the relevant lines.
Right now scientists and many other people keep saying stuff like "do it because we can", "don't stop progress", "don't be a luddite".
BUT this is NOT the same as being luddites or sticking our heads in the sand, this is in fact the opposite. This is seeing a potential issue in the horizon, and choosing to not charge at it, until we have a more well thought out plan of what to do when we get there.
The power to make "Jaffa Cakes" and biscuits is not a real biggie, but what should we do with human/animal/machine hybrids?
What makes you legally human? Killing a stray aka "free" dog and unplugging a brain dead human are considered different things legally.
At what points do we consider something human? Be very careful where and how the line is drawn, or many of us may end up not being legally considered human. If we draw the line another way, we might have to stop eating pigs, dogs, etc. The pigs might be happier (or not - since pig farmers will just close down their pig farms and leave them to fend for themselves aka die). It is no trivial matter. We already have enough problems convincing people what can and cannot be done with human embryos, imagine the problems with hybrid human-animal embryos.
If we are not prepared to draw certain lines yet, "don't go there yet" then. If we charge into things, the judges may not have enough understanding when they draw the first line, could then be a long and troubled wait till it is next redrawn.
There are plenty of other areas to do research in first (and limited resources anyway). Areas without such problems.
Lastly, even if a human embryo isn't much in the early months (or weeks), for symbolic reasons we could draw a more cautious (early) line. After all we for various reasons have chosen to elevate humans and human life above all other creatures. If we are going to value humans so highly, giving special value to a near brainless human embryo doesn't seem that stupid to me.
Plus if we don't, it might be harder to convince the future AIs or advanced hybrids to value humans and their embryos as highly ;).
I suspect bees can get angry or even "grouchy". If you poke about a beehive when the weather is wet they are more likely to sting you than when it's nice and sunny.
You might say it's just anthropomorphizing them, but hey many people don't even realize they're grouchy when they are hungry (denial?), they're more likely to snap at you.
So if you did something to an AI then it appears to take things personally and makes extra special effort to hurt you, then for all intents and purposes I'd say you pissed off the AI.
Apparently right to left languages can be harder to localize because the native readers also expect stuff like pictures indicating sequence of events to go right to left as well.
;).
:).
So if you have an image with the pictures/diagrams in the order of A, B, C. They would think C happens first, then B, then A.
Of course, in a game, the players would probably figure it out eventually
As for shipping all on the same date, I don't see why it matters that much. Many nonnative speakers can still play the english version if they want to badly enough.
The big problem you have is if the first released version is banned/illegal in their country and it isn't really a localization problem and more of a "legalization" problem. In which case if you don't release a legal version soon enough, they'd probably pirate the initial release. So by the time the legal version comes out, you might have missed out on some sales.
My brother tried to buy GTA3 when he went to Singapore but apparently it was banned at the time
Just curious. How well would you guys do at detection if stuff like perl malware becomes common?
Would it the same, or harder?
I'm asking this because if stuff like OSX and Linux become more and more popular, they will become viable targets to convert to "zombies". And both OSX and Linux have a different set of built-ins for malware authors to take advantage of- e.g. scripting languages.
Then maybe they should start them with Lisp instead? :)
I prefer "Extrans", so that I can use symbols like < and > without problems. Extrans appears to be Slashdot's term for "plain text".
Whereas Slashdot's "Plain old text" treats special characters as special, and converts urls to links. It's not what I'd expect from "plain old text".
I have no idea why it's like that.
At least you have an option to go somewhere else.
.com for DNSSEC purposes? Network Solutions?
But with DNSSEC, I believe we'd all be stuck with one per TLD.
So who is going to be in charge of
If it's non directional, does not get blocked by most materials and has a range of a few meters, how well would it work if in apartments where you and your neighbours tried to use the tech?
;)
I can see a few potential problems with that
> Resonant transfer is great stuff
Yeah, especially if you're living in an apartment, you get to borrow your neighbour's power (and vice versa).
Do you get arrested if you keep forgetting to turn on your "power sender", but leave your "power receiver" on?
It reduces your chances of getting cancer. If it fries you to death you're not going to get cancer. ;)
But if the attacker already controls a computer on the internal network, there's already so much more the attacker can do, in addition to pwning your router.
Whereas if the attacker is outside and only trusted machines are on the internal network, the attacker needs to guess or determine the IP address of your router, in order to get your browser to attack your router (or get your computer to do that by some other means). This is only trivial if the routers are using addresses like 192.168.1.1 and 10.1.1.1 etc.
Otherwise I am not aware of a trivial way to do that. If you know, do let me know.
I do know you can determine stuff like the browser's IP address if you have access to the relevant activex stuff. But it does not seem easy with just javascript alone. Examples from google search are either stuff that's plain wrong or a javascript+java example that gives 127.0.0.1 on my browser (I suspect if you can loosen up the java restrictions it'll return a more useful ip address - that's what the relevant docs say anyway, but by default it's 127.0.0.1).
The javascript portscanning scripts I'm aware of all require the attacker to specify a network range.
e.g. http://michaeldaw.org/projects/jsscanner
So if you can work out a good way to do it on popular browsers that just requires "default browser config", you might have your 15 minutes of fame :).
There were a few other words and sentences in my post, if you read it.
Uh, they don't have to use different distros.
If people just disabled remote admin (which you should do anyway) and used different router IPs (e.g. not 192.168.1.1 or the usual), then attackers either need to do additional stuff to figure out what your default gateway is (and thus presumably your router IP), or they need to have significant control of a PC attached to the internal network (and presumably able to access the router webpage).